About your Search

20131101
20131130
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3
contractual e relationship. but yes, it does finance the existence. they don't put constraints on us so long as the people understand the blog itself is exclusively sponsored by them. what other people are going to this era where media obviously faces as people ere know much better than me, media faces real challenges when people like scotus blog are information for free. journalistic contributions going in terms of creations?heir we create a problem rather than solving a problem. hat is it that supreme court insiders are going to do in terms of creating unique contact. inspire people to do more innovative things to find their iche in the marketplace as we tried to as well. but what you're going to do about a space like scotus blog, if you're "the new york times" or if you're a local player or media, american lawyer it's a real puzzle. we have to recognize the possibility we might celebrate an existence, but as economic matter, it may cause solved.oblems than it and scotus blog itself may contribute some content. ut the body of all of the reporting by tony and by others .hat really informs t
seconds will be fired. i don't know if that rule still i know some people at law firms and then they go off to be a law clerk them,year and i say to well i will talk to on the other side. it would be deleterious to their careers to talk to me during the clerkship. that is one reason why it is so rare because law clerks would be a great source for pending or a recently issued decision, how it came about. but it just never happens. think that it probably was either a justice or injustice is relative because nobody's going to discipline them for talking to the press, but it law clerk -- it could really be a career ending move for a law clerk to talk to the press and give that kind of information. why did it happen this time? i think the emotions were so , there was so much -- there were a lot of conspiracy theories especially when the decision did come out and it seemed so anomalous for the court to declare the affordable on onet constitutional part of the constitution and constitutional under another part, i think people were looking for the explanation behind these -- behind this particu
, on the ocean. i don't know how well that's going to work out. but it is mobilizing people around. say n't say it, i should it. t's easier to mobilize popular support to do something about universal health insurance. ecause everybody knows a relative, friends, or neighbor that's been struck by an needed or cancer and help. in the case of global warming, future at is more oriented. more abtract for most people and weather that's not going make it seem like a uniform uniform cost to everybody. he country as a whole sympathizes when severe tornadoes occur here at oklahoma but i don't think it will mobilize a coalition for change. so that's part of the reason i like the dividend idea. it offers a way to make the whole thing concrete and also to empower people. because the dividend approach is hat you have to have a future-oriented politics. you have to make the case that an energy transition is going to be good for most people. and they can participate and help in that transition to occur. for example, some people might decide to give their dividend church so the church can be weatherized. some p
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3